Koo-Koo Dean & Koo-Koo-Sinich

"As with Vietnam, this
is becoming an emotional battle between ideologues who, as usual,
don't give a damn about the truth. -- Kucinich seems to be one
of those." - Richard Cohen, February
2003

P.S. -

"Despite a long antiabortion
record, which he recently (conveniently?) renounced, he has been
featured in the Nation, a venerable and respected liberal magazine." - Richard Cohen, February 2003

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Tuesday, February 25, 2003
THE WASHINGTON POST

by Richard Cohen

"Liar" is a word
rarely used in Washington. This is not because the town lacks
liars but because the word is so unambiguous -- so lacking in
customary fudge -- that its use was long ago forbidden by, of
course, consensus.

So it was particularly shocking,
not to mention refreshing, to hear Richard Perle on Sunday call
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) a liar to his face. I paused to
see if the Washington Monument would crack down the middle.

It did not. Moreover, Kucinich
himself seemed only momentarily fazed by Perle's sharp right
to his integrity and went on, indomitable demagogue that he seems
to be, to maintain that the coming war with Iraq will be fought
to control that nation's oil.

Kucinich, a presidential candidate,
has made this charge before, and when Tim Russert asked him on
"Meet the Press" to back it up, here is what he said:

"I base that on the fact
that there is $5 trillion worth of oil above and in the ground
in Iraq, that individuals involved in the administration have
been involved in the oil industry, that the oil industry would
certainly benefit from having the administration control Iraq,
and that the fact is that, since no other case has been made
to go to war against Iraq, . . . oil represents the strongest
incentive."

But it is not true that no
other case has been made for war with Iraq.

In fact, many cases have been
made -- some persuasive, some not. Some were made by George Bush,
some by Tony Blair, some by Republicans and some by Democrats.
If you don't impose a deadline for the war, then the case for
it was even made by the U.N. Security Council's Resolution 1441,
endorsed, as it happens, by France. I don't think France, not
to mention Syria, would have voted to secure Iraq's oil for America's
energy companies.

Kucinich's accusation was
too much for Perle, a Pentagon adviser and Washington's uber-hawk.

He called Kucinich's argument
"a lie."

"It is an out-and-out
lie," he said. "And I'm sorry to see you give credence
to it."

But Kucinich, who must have
studied logic in France, came roaring back. -- "Well, if
America is not at threat, then what is this about? And many people
are wondering: 'How did our oil get under their sand?' "

A better question is: How
did this fool get on "Meet the Press"?

The answer is disheartening.
Not only is Kucinich running for president, but he has emerged
-- along with former Vermont governor Howard Dean -- as the darling
of antiwar Democrats who will have much influence in the Iowa
caucuses. George Bush's war -- whether for a better world or
more SUVs -- may well be fought hand to hand in the Iowa snows.

As for Dean, he too had something
to say about Iraq over the weekend. Along with most of the other
presidential candidates, he appeared before the Democratic National
Committee and started right off with Iraq: "What I want
to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is
supporting the president's unilateral attack in Iraq?"

If Dean was referring to the
original congressional resolution, then maybe he's technically
correct. But if the verb "is" means what it usually
does, then he is just plain wrong. Britain supports the United
States. That makes it bilateral. And Spain would make it trilateral,
and Italy and Poland and the Netherlands and the Czech Republic
make it multilateral. Whatever may have been Bush's initial preference,
he did wind up going to the United Nations -- and, it seems,
going and going and going. Why is Dean saying something so unilaterally
wrong?

Because something truly awful
has happened. The looming war has already become deeply and biliously
ideological.

By that I mean that the extremes
on both sides -- but particularly the war's opponents -- no longer
feel compelled to prove a case or stick to the facts. As with
Vietnam, this is becoming an emotional battle between ideologues
who, as usual, don't give a damn about the truth.

Kucinich seems to be one of
those.

He may be largely an unknown,
but in liberal circles he's something of a hero. Despite a long
antiabortion record, which he recently (conveniently?) renounced,
he has been featured in the Nation, a venerable and respected
liberal magazine.

It's impossible to know whether
Kucinich believes what he said or was merely repeating a lie
because others believe it.

Either way, if he and his
fellow antiwar candidates are going to turn a complex debate
into an ideological brawl, then one outcome of the potential
war will not be in doubt:

In last Sunday's London Observer,
Nick Cohen made this incisive observation in the course of reviewing
a book by an obscure left-wing author:

"Whatever other crimes
it committed or covered up in the twentieth century, the Left
could be relied upon to fight fascism. -- A regime that launched
genocidal extermination campaigns against impure minorities would
be recognised for what it was and denounced. Not the least of
the casualties of the Iraq war is the death of anti-fascism."

The left once apologized for
communism...but communism, evil though it was, at least was premised
on a universalist vision of a better world.

Why does the left now defend
fascist regimes?

Because they're no longer
for anything; what's important is what they're against: America,
Israel, "Eurocentric" civilization.

The motto of today's reactionary
left ought to be "The enemy of my country is my friend."

"I had a horrible feeling
in my stomach this morning when I saw that Hussein had been capatured
(sic)." - recent post at DemocraticUnderground.com

PART ONE

Even as the Fourth Infantry
Division was capturing Saddam, the NEW YORK TIMES was publishing
this gloomy editorial on Saturday:

"Isn't this about where
we did not want to be at this point? -- While the Bush administration
says things are going well in Iraq, the news from the American-led
occupation is looking like a catalog of easily predictable, and
widely predicted, pitfalls."

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

PART TWO

Grass-roots Dems are unable
to contain their gloom over the wonderful news of the apprehension.

Here's a post by someone called
ikojo at DemocraticUnderground.com --

(quoted verbatim...)

"I had a horrible feeling
in my stomach this morning when I saw that Hussein had been capatured.

This is a BIG boost for *.
This will be used in campaign literature. It will make Dems and
others who opposed the war look bad as well. I don't regret opposing
shrub's war of aggression on Iraq but it sure will be hard for
the candidates now, unless they press the Where's Osama issue
but since a majority of Americans already believe that Hussein
was behind 9/11/01 it hardly matters.

All of a sudden I am not confident
he will lose in 2004.

Please boost my confidence
in shrub's defeat in November 2004.

Look what he has going for
him right now:

- Dow over 10,000

- Hussein captured

- The pug CONvention is going
to be in NYC around the time of the 9/11 anniversary

-A complacent and compliant
right-wing corporate controlled media all too willing to act
as an arm of the pentagon and white house press room.

- His administration did what
his daddy did not, supposedly captured Hussein.

The conspiracy theorist in
me says that if this is REALLY Hussein then why didn't * and
his media minions not wait until Monday to announce his capture?"

Again, really too much. As if, because you
dare to think about other ways other than war, you are not loyal
to your country and your world. And this is the message of Michael
the real country has no boundaries. Each of us is more than the
country we are born in and that's what makes the rightwing Christian
group as transparent as they are. Claiming to be on the side
of Jesus when in actuality they are doing all they can against
his message. They are dividing instead of uniting. War and Hate
are easy. Peace requires dillegence and great thinkers to find
the way.

Claiming to be on the side of Jesus when
in actuality they are doing all they can against his message.

Exactly. The derogatory expression "bleeding
heart liberal" is a blasphemy against the Mystery of Golgotha,
where the heart of Christ bled on behalf of humanity, overflowing
with compassion for humanity. Instead, the Religious Right construct
a Jesus of their own, the well-armed merciless executioner and
judge who does not forgive sins, but sends people to the gallows
and invades countries with armies, trampling down children, like
the tribal deities of the Old Testament. These "Christians"
are the spiritual kinfolks of Muslim fundamentalists who decapitate
their sinners in their town squares for sexual indiscretions.

Tarjei wrote:These "Christians" are the spiritual kinfolks of
Muslim fundamentalists who decapitate their sinners in their
town squares for sexual indiscretions.

Hi Tarjei
Or like the early Jews and Christians for that matter. We can't
forget the stonings of women who were accused of Adultry in the
near past can we? Unfortunately the Islmaic world will catch
up to greater civility only when the West finds a more loving
couragious manner in which to lead the world and its brothers.
I say unfortunately because I don't know if there are enough
Gandhis and Kings in the world to ensure this outcome.

The derogatory expression "bleeding
heart liberal" is a blasphemy against the Mystery of Golgotha,
where the heart of Christ bled on behalf of humanity, overflowing
with compassion for humanity. Instead, the Religious Right construct
a Jesus of their own, the well-armed merciless executioner and
judge who does not forgive sins, but sends people to the gallows
and invades countries with armies, trampling down children, like
the tribal deities of the Old Testament.

TarjeiExactly. The derogatory expression "bleeding heart liberal"
is a blasphemy against the Mystery of Golgotha, where the heart
of Christ bled on behalf of humanity, overflowing with compassion
for humanity.

Oh jeez Tarjei, you are right! Oh what thoughts
to be armed with when having this conversation. Wow.

Oh jeez Tarjei, you are right! Oh what
thoughts to be armed with when having this conversation. Wow.

And while I'm at it, I'll give you another
one: The infamous right wing slogan "No Free Lunch for Anybody"
- not even for starving children - is a blasphemy against the
fourth sign (or miracle) by Christ: The feeding of the five thousand.
The Religious Right is utterly anti-life, anti-Christian, brutal,
unforgiving, vindictive, murderous, and misanthropic.

Because they're no longer for anything; what's important is what
they're against: America, Israel, "Eurocentric" civilization.

Rightwing propaganda clear and simple. No
ifs ands or but about it.

The Right is trying to hook the Democrat party
to socialists, implying that they stand for nothing. Mostly because
what they stand for means nothing to the Right. I've been invited
into the Republican meetings, hoping to bring me into the fold,
because I am open to listening to their arguments without calling
them fanatics. Propaganda and nothing more. The mere fact that
they put their ego before their beliefs here in California shows
what they truly stand for and it has nothing to do with morals
or they would have voted for McClintock. Just a stupid silly
nitpicking school yard fight. Little boys playing grownup.

I'll have to second that impression. It's
a polarization of the weird kind, colored by hostility so strong
that the thoughts behind the political positions become blurred.

Traditionally, the radical left has stod for
dynamic change and new ideas while the conservative right has
been holding back in order to conserve established institutions
and values so they are not torn apart too quickly and thoughtlessly.
A healthy society will find a harmonious balance between the
left (Lucifer) and the right (Ahriman).

When a biased and unflexible position is assumed
on the political left or right, attacking a caricature of the
opposite wing with a vengeance, the balance flies out the window.